Thanks for telling me. I’ll try it sometime.
G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)
-
The thing that always rubbed me the wrong way with NOs (since they were first introduced in AA50) is that they involve a huge amount of tracking by the players, for a comparatively small payoff. […] I am constantly searching for ways to change National Objectives into Generic Objectives (objectives that work the same way for everyone.) And to preserve the idea of a National Objective (only where necessary) as being much more focused and limited in scope. I’d prefer a scheme where a similar amount of “bonus” money was still introduced, but in a way that’s easier to track.
I think of it from a gameplay perspective. If the game includes National Objectives, not only do you need to be aware of your own, but you need to conside everyone else’s objectives as well. And because none of that information is represented graphically on the map, it demands a pretty onerous amount of memorization from each participant in the game. I accept that this is unavoidable to a certain extent for novelty and to give each nation it’s own unique flavor. I just think it could be accomplished with fewer total objectives. I think 3 each would be manageable, and then make up the difference either by giving those NOs a higher value, or by augmenting it with generic objectives shared by all. Such as for control of VCs, or battle bonuses, or what have you.
I understand where you are coming from here. I agree that NOs, as they stand, are not entirely consistent or scientific. I often wonder how much mathematical consideration was given to the NO impact when G40 was designed… Any consideration? Or was it simply a historic premise and a perceived need for the money so they were adopted based on what sounded/looked best?
For example, the UK (Europe) only has one NO totaling 5 IPCs. Italy has four NOs totaling 17 IPCs. ANZAC has two NOs totaling 10 IPCs. Did the designers just run out of ideas for Britain? Did they think that Britain has a sufficient cashflow and didn’t need bonuses? Did Britain really not have any other significant National Objectives or strategic motivations in the European war? Besides which, the UK Europe NO is rather bland and unimaginative (all original territories). Keeping all original territories is already the goal of every player.
A full 20 IPCs of US income is based on NOs that involve keeping original territories. These are territories that are basically unassailable by Japan or Germany in my experience. This tells me that NOs are not entirely random but that some are integral to a Power’s ability to fight the war.
Tracking your own can be difficult enough, but strategically you have to be aware of everyone else’s too. Indicating them on the map somehow is a great idea. Cards are good, but they are less graphically descriptive. As for a set amount for each Power… I am neither for or against. It kind of goes back to my question about if some Powers have more because they need more money or more strategic incentive or because the designers ran out of ideas?
And I don’t like the name “UK” for a Pacific faction to begin with, so there’s that as well haha.
Me neither. It is dumb. We just call it India during play.
Would you maybe rather have split economies for everyone? Or for everyone relevant, like US, UK, and Russia? That might work, and might solve some issues with the Japan vs USA, Japan vs Russia situation. Though again seems like it might be more complicated than its worth.
Haha… ABSOLUTELY NOT! As I said before, with the UK it was more of an acceptance thing. I certainly don’t want to do it deliberately to another country. For the US it would make sense, sort of, but I would never advocate it. For the USSR I think it would be both disastrous (for both the USSR and Japan) and unrealistic.
If you wanted to control the spending of income, I’d do that on the placement side somehow, the way Jennifer suggested. X IPCs, or X units must be placed on one side or the other, or maybe both. It could perhaps be tied to the factory unit itself?
This is something that hasn’t been tried yet in A&A, or at least not at full scale. I mean the idea that Major Factories have an IPC spending cap, as well as a production cap. Or perhaps its not a cap, but a minimum, or an allowance. […] This would necessarily ground/distribute the spending where the production is actually located.It just seems odd how you have such a concentration of income into some factories, at the expense of others in A&A. I mean wouldn’t nearly all the facilities that a nation controls be producing arms in any given span of time?
Distributing production (evenly) where you have factories or somehow placement tied to the relative size of those factories seems reasonable, but I do not like the idea. I think the freedom to place where you need and want is more important than the forced realism of such a restriction. Like I have said before, at this scale of strategic gameplay, I think you begin to straddle the line between the more realistic tactical and logistic considerations governing a war and the simplifications needed for ease of play. To me, a factory rule like this only complicates the ease of play.
My general philosophy for A&A rules is that I believe in limits, not mandates. Same with factories, limits (based on either the major/minor distinction or the old way of territory value) are reasonable in that you don’t want Germany dropping all 70 IPCs of new units in Stalingrad after they capture it. This forces a spread of unit placement all by itself. But to mandate that Germany always place a certain number of units in certain territories puts a handicap on strategic planning. For the USSR this would not be a huge issue since all their factories are more or less on the front lines. But for the UK this could be especially problematic. This would defeat the strategic financial flexibility that Marc referenced in combining India with Britain and it would also dictate purchases to some extent. Suppose the UK must put at least 2 units in their S. Africa factory per turn. What if Africa is basically won? What if the UK needs units in England for an invasion? The UK will be out 6 IPCs every turn because that is the bare minimum they can spend to satisfy the factory requirement. Same situation for the factory in Canada. Now they are out 6 more IPCs.
As Marc pointed out, there were ways for nations to increase their production capacity that didn’t necessitate conquering new territories. But in the game the only way to increase your IPC total is to take land from the enemy or from neutrals. If not the factory unit, than I guess what I’m proposing is a unit or marker that generates money or expands the economy directly. Not a moveable resource scheme, since that involves a whole other set of challenges. I’m thinking something simpler, just a token on the map that generates cash (that must be spent at THAT location) which can be placed to anchor the purchasing gameplay.
My rationale for the income system OOB is that it already accounts for peak economy. Increase or decrease in economic power is reflected in the taking and losing of territory as the game progresses. This is a convenient but simple way to account for production increase over time. My impression, without hard facts on hand, is that the only nations to very significantly increase their productive capacity between 1940 and 1945 were the Soviet Union and the United States. The production/economy centers of the United States were mostly removed from the war and unassailable. So the jump of the US economy to 80 IPCs right away is understandable. The US never really shrank territorially nor did their industrial base fall under assault.
The USSR is a more of a unique case. Even as they were compressed and losing territory they actually began producing more. I am in the middle of the book Stalingrad by Anthony Bevor and just last night read about how German tank production in 1942 was (I believe) 500 tanks per month. Hitler simply refused to believe that the Soviets were reportedly producing 1200 tanks per month. In fact, this estimate was much too low. By September of 1942 (with the USSR at its territorial lowest point of the war), they were approaching 2000 per month in tank production.
In short, I don’t believe we need an extra IPC generating element. I feel that tying these undefined IPCs to some sort of expanding or contracting mechanism may be a little too complex and fluid for proper integration into the game. What would this generation be tied to, if anything? If we scrip a racheted increase over time, we are essentially trying to push the game in one direction and remove the initiative away from strategy and towards… fate? Similar to the time-clock that ratchets down Japan’s IPCs, but this time it ratchets them up (mostly for the Allies from my perspective). Control of the ability to produce would be taken from the players and set with some element separate from the physical board.
This doesn’t totally solve the essential problem of units “going the wrong way” or marching off in wildly “ahistorical” total one dimensional directions. That problem goes beyond just the purchasing location where units are spawned, and moves into a broader “movement” phase issues, where units wander around the map after they’re purchased/spawned. There’s probably no way to really force players to play somewhere, unless you include a movement restriction/allowance of some sort. But production restrictions/allowances could get you at least half way there.
Again, Limits vs Mandates… it is not my intent with rule revisions to script the game or to further impose on players what they must do. I would rather see mechanisms that foster more realistic decisions and options.
Right now you can be awarded money for conquering land, or achieving objectives, but the money never has any strings attached. What if instead of “+10 ipcs”, an objective read something like “+10 IPC, to spend in Central USA” where the objective bonuses counted during the purchase units phase, rather than the collect income phase? Things like that would allow you to control the flow a bit more, even if you wanted to stay within an NO type framework.
This isn’t a bad idea. I am not sure how you would want to structure it, but NOs may be the most proper place. Since they are essentially bonus money, NOs could have strings attached… as in the units must be placed in a certain territory. I am willing to try that. However, doing so may likewise split the money pool to the point that it influences unit purchases.
-
I haven’t tried playing with a single UK economy. I know a few people have. Not sure what they thought of it. LHoffman makes a good point about sealion. I agree with GeneralVeers about reducing the major in India to two minors. I don’t know that it would be necessary to 86 the SA and Canada ones though. I know Gamerman1 uses the two minors in his version.
@LHoffman if you get on a stalingrad kick when you’re done with Anthony Bevor and haven’t already read it, Michael Jones “Stalingrad:how the Red Army Triumphed” is pretty good
-
Yeah, yet another mechanic for introducing ipcs into the game is probably just going to further complicate an already extremely complex game. Even as I was typing the idea, the rules overhead for it seemed a bit too involved.
But moving back to India, unless anyone has any strong objections, I say we move to a single UK economy, and whatever rebalancing is required to make that happen (either in the unit set up, starting income, or NO bonuses) we can deal with down the road.
This gives Anzac a somewhat peculiar over-representation in the game (why Australia, New Zealand but not Canada? etc) but for the time being, if the sculpts are included in the box, we might as well make use of them.
I suspect that the UK Pacific split economy, is one part relic from previous Pacific game, one part just “trying to make new separate 1940 games work together” as a functional global game, without totally changing the set up cards. I think it was probably a compromise, to prevent some kind of KJF slam out of India. But since we are no longer wedded to the OOB set up cards, it seems like we could find other solutions. Downgrading the Indian major, using 2 minors instead, or other approaches like that.
I’m just glad that so far everyone seems to be on board with the idea of a unified UK economy, because I think that will be a lot simpler to work with.
-
If you unify England’s income, shouldn’t it also include ANZAC’s?
Also, you might want to drop that Major in India to a Minor complex and supplement it with another minor in W. India.
Otherwise, I like the idea…never understood why the US could have 100 IPC a round going into one theater but England had to save those 10 IPC for India even if it meant London falling to Germany…
-
This gives Anzac a somewhat peculiar over-representation in the game (why Australia, New Zealand but not Canada? etc) but for the time being, if the sculpts are included in the box, we might as well make use of them.
I’m just glad that so far everyone seems to be on board with the idea of a unified UK economy, because I think that will be a lot simpler to work with.
Why don’t use this Halifax Option as a more viable minor Power, keeping UK as a unified economy (still much higher than 38 IPCs)?
Western Canada could also have some shipbuilding capacity in the Pacific.Commonwealth Option #1
All territories with an ANZAC and Canadian roundel on them will now be know as the Commonwealth. This new nation will replace ANZAC in the game round sequence, and all British beige starting units on Canadian territories must now be replaced with ANZAC gray pieces (including the sea units in sea zone #106). This power’s starting income will be 17 IPCs,
and the United Kingdom’s will be 38 IPCs. -
@Cmdr:
If you unify England’s income, shouldn’t it also include ANZAC’s?
I think the idea was to address the fact that the rules artificially treat the British-roundel territories as two separate economies, not to address the fact that the British Empire and Commonwealth is divided into British-roundel territories, ANZAC-roundel territories and Canadian-roundel territories.
-
@LHoffman if you get on a stalingrad kick when you’re done with Anthony Bevor and haven’t already read it, Michael Jones “Stalingrad:how the Red Army Triumphed” is pretty good
Thanks Barney, while I find Stalingrad (the book) interesting and well written, it hasn’t been as focused on the gritty, back-and-forth close combat that I expected. My father has the Time Life collection on WWII and the Stalingrad volume was utterly captivating. It really got into the drawn out engagements for the Tractor Factory, the Red October Factory and the Grain Silo. It treated them as stories in-and-of-themselves. Bevor takes a more sweeping strategic level approach, including details and specific accounts where needed.
I will look into your recommendation by Jones. Thank you.
@Cmdr:
If you unify England’s income, shouldn’t it also include ANZAC’s?
Otherwise, I like the idea…never understood why the US could have 100 IPC a round going into one theater but England had to save those 10 IPC for India even if it meant London falling to Germany…
My impression on the reason behind dividing the UK was, as Marc said, the vague reason that the UK had large global holdings and the global fight should be more represented with multiple economies. It kinda makes sense, but a unified UK economy doesn’t mean that global presence is removed.
Combining ANZAC with the Britain/India UK could potentially cause issues… the UK would have 55 IPCs as a starting income! Honestly that is a little ridiculous. It is a huge amount of money that could be spent (on the front line) immediately against Germany or Japan in any one spot. Australia could almost be ignored for the most part. The UK could easily forego production in India for a turn and blow 55 IPCs in Britain on a large navy (which is the first step for European invasion)… something Germany could not hope to match and cannot afford to expend their air force on.
The US would be a different case because although they too had global holdings or interests, it wasn’t as decentralized. 99% US influence and economy is based in the continental US. Whatever the case… your point is still valid. They US can throw all their money one way if desired. The UK can’t.
@Baron:
Why don’t use this Halifax Option as a more viable minor Power, keeping UK as a unified economy (still much higher than 38 IPCs)?
Western Canada could also have some shipbuilding capacity in the Pacific.Commonwealth Option #1
All territories with an ANZAC and Canadian roundel on them will now be know as the Commonwealth. This new nation will replace ANZAC in the game round sequence, and all British beige starting units on Canadian territories must now be replaced with ANZAC gray pieces (including the sea units in sea zone #106). This power’s starting income will be 17 IPCs,
and the United Kingdom’s will be 38 IPCs.This could work. Commonwealth total of 17 IPCs and a UK total of 38 IPCs looks correct… any reason you crossed it out BM? I don’t understand why there are Canadian roundels in the first place since they do not have a separate economy. The roundel in Western Canada would become Commonwealth. I don’t understand why the Newfoundland-Labrador roundel is UK and not Canadian. Not that it matters; it isn’t worth anything.
This would seem to be a little more accurate also. Canada and Australia tended to have more autonomy and very much separate forces from the UK in the war. It would improve ANZAC’s purchasing power, but would require them to balance their efforts with Canada, which would most readily reach towards Europe. It would balance the UK out a bit better economically. Instead of the UK having 45 IPCs (with Canada), they have a more reasonable 38 IPCs (without Canada).
-
I don’t understand why there are Canadian roundels in the first place since they do not have a separate economy. <<
The idealistic answer would be: to recognize the major role played by Canada in WWII. The crass answer would be: the give the game more appeal on the Canadian market.
The roundel in Western Canada would become Commonwealth. <<
G40/2 map errata: roundel should be Canadian, not British.
I don’t understand why the Newfoundland-Labrador roundel is UK and not Canadian. Not that it matters; it isn’t worth anything.
<<Newfoundland had placed itself under direct rule from London in the mid-1930s due to economic difficulties and political corruption, so it’s appropriate that it’s depicted as a British territory. Newfoundlanders in WWII served mainly in British or Canadian units.
-
Thanks for the clarifications Marc.
-
Incidentally, if you want to get an idea of what the map would look like with a “joint Commonwealth roundel” on the territories of (and controlled by) Canada, Newfoundland, Eire, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, have a look at my customization of the G40/1 map here:
-
@CWO:
Incidentally, if you want to get an idea of what the map would look like with a “joint Commonwealth roundel” on the territories of (and controlled by) Canada, Newfoundland, Eire, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, have a look at my customization of the G40/1 map here:
Nice. I like it better that way. Although if I do something similar it will probably be dominion roundel for ANZAC/Canada and UK roundels for everywhere else, just to be easily distinguishable counting IPCs.
-
Just throwing this out there early, so we have plenty of time…
Any thoughts on a name for the whole Mod?
:-D -
Global 40: Advance and Proceed
a nod to the new rulesor
Global 40: Justified Warrior
acknowledges more realismSomething other than revised anyway :)
-
@CWO:
@Cmdr:
If you unify England’s income, shouldn’t it also include ANZAC’s?
I think the idea was to address the fact that the rules artificially treat the British-roundel territories as two separate economies, not to address the fact that the British Empire and Commonwealth is divided into British-roundel territories, ANZAC-roundel territories and Canadian-roundel territories.
I was kind of going, if you unify UK-A and UK-P why not just toss in ANZAC too since they are also UK…
TBH, I’d rather split the US like the UK is. Territories in US-P would have to spend in US-P and territories in US-A would be spent in US-A. (And don’t tell me it’s overly cumbersome for the US, you could very easily build warships in one zone and planes in the other and just fly out to meet the ships. Or tanks in W. USA, Infantry/Transports in E. USA and not have a long “add time” to your shuttle of troops.)
That would split the US at the start of the game to: 35 IPC for Atlantic USA and 17 IPC for Pacific USA before War even starts, and not including any National Objectives which you could put in either economy. Maybe you could exempt the US until they are at war - so they still have a few rounds to “catch up” to Japan?
-
Just throwing this out there early, so we have plenty of time…
Any thoughts on a name for the whole Mod?You may want to wait until the redesign is almost finished before settling on a name. Picking a name at this early stage creates the danger that people will try to make the game fit the name, thus warping the redesign process. You’ll be in a much better position to pick a good name once the design is complete because the perfect name might become obvious from the finished product. The shape of the finished product is still very hazy at this point, so why take the risk of pre-selecting a name that may prove unsuitable? If a working name is considered necessary or convenient, my suggestion would be to use a completely meaningless code name, just as some companies do when they’re working on a major development project.
-
@Cmdr:
I was kind of going, if you unify UK-A and UK-P why not just toss in ANZAC too since they are also UK…
TBH, I’d rather split the US like the UK is. Territories in US-P would have to spend in US-P and territories in US-A would be spent in US-A. (And don’t tell me it’s overly cumbersome for the US, you could very easily build warships in one zone and planes in the other and just fly out to meet the ships. Or tanks in W. USA, Infantry/Transports in E. USA and not have a long “add time” to your shuttle of troops.)
That would split the US at the start of the game to: 35 IPC for Atlantic USA and 17 IPC for Pacific USA before War even starts, and not including any National Objectives which you could put in either economy. Maybe you could exempt the US until they are at war - so they still have a few rounds to “catch up” to Japan?
Sounds fair to me. I don’t like the idea of splitting it, but this is at least equitable. As you said, it doesn’t mean the US-P has to send all their stuff to the Pacific. They could just ship it East if the want to.
The only area it becomes annoying, if not exactly cumbersome, is having to keep track of what are now two separate bank accounts. Instead of having to track two incomes or recalculate the amount that needs to go one place or the other, you could just give a flat number that must be spent in US-P. Such as 17 or perhaps an even 20. Anything beyond that may be spent anywhere. This could, as you said, be effective only once the US is at war.
-
Global 40: Advance and Proceed
a nod to the new rulesor
Global 40: Justified Warrior
acknowledges more realismSomething other than revised anyway :)
Axis & Allies: Megazord
-
As far as combat units go, I would set out these chief goals for fixing busted units in the current (ideally the solutions for the “problem units” should interrelated.)
Deal with the vulnerability of navies to mass bomber spams
Make the Cruiser a worthwhile purchase.
Fix AAAguns once and for all.
Last things first, AAguns suck. This is pretty universally acknowledged. It blows that the unit sculpt is pretty cool, but it just has no good role to play in the game for most players. For me the single most annoying thing about AAguns is how they are restricted the non-combat phase. This makes them an all around headache in addition to being overpriced and underpowered. So lets fix them.
As for Cruisers, granting them some sort of AA shot on the water, would fulfill the dual purpose of giving them a unique role to play in the naval game, while also helping to mitigate the overwhelming power of Bombers vs Navies.
Does anyone object? Or see this as a non-issue? I would love to find a way to make the AAAgun into a normal combat unit, that moves during the normal combat phase, and can load and unload from transports in the same way all the other transportable units can.
If no one objects to a tweak then I would suggest that we find a way to adapt the AAAgun and the Cruiser (oerhaps in a way that doesn’t violate the current battle board core info) perhaps by granting them some special or expanded abilities?
Cruiser anti air capalities have been discussed before.
Flak that can move during combat has also been discussed.
I think it’d be nice if we took a look at some of those discussions and settled on something we can all get behind.Not saying we need to iron out all the details right now, but just to looking for some agreement in general principle. :-D
-
ps. As far as splitting the US economy Pacific/Atlantic, wouldn’t this create the same kind of weirdness that we’re trying to eliminate with UK? I wonder if there are other approaches we could take?
I might be a fan for example, if we want the USA to play a split theater game, to do this with starting units already in position. Or perhaps through purchasing as a special “bonus” (rather than as a spending restriction.) Just as an example, if the Americans received a special Naval War Chest, dedicated to each theater or operation, something like +20 ipcs Pacific but that can only be spent on ships, +20 ipcs Atlantic that can only be spent on ships and tie that to a national objective. Call it “Liberty ships” and just be done with it.
Really the only units that tie you to a theater as the Americans are the naval units, everything else can be shifted rapidly shifted around. Even naval units can be shifted quite fast, but at least by having a cap in place and approaching it as a kind of bonus rather than core income, and I think players might adapt to the split theater game.
Use it as a way to put some a midway point between potential Axis navies and US navies.
This way instead of collecting or purchasing for two economies, its just like “here’s a 20 for your Pacific ships” and “Here’s another 20 for your Atlantic ships.” Pretty easy to count, like a flat rate bonus attached to some high value target. Like for Allied control of Hawaii and Midway hehe. That’d give Japan some reason to move forward.
Could do the same on the Atlantic side, I don’t know with Iceland maybe? Or you could make it more of an aspirational Objective. if Americans control some target territory, like Morocco hehe.
Maybe 20 is too high? What about 10? You know you give +10 ipcs in Ships in that theater, for doing whatever main thing we want them to do. Like battle over some pacific islands, or invade islands around North Africa/Med.
The exact amount doesn’t matter really, but the idea is that it has to be spent on ships. And then you attach the money to specific islands, naval bases, or coastal factory territories to put them in play.
The USA already collects a lot of loot OOB in normal Objective/At War Bonuses, (as pointed out by others here), but instead of giving them bonuses for holding their core territories, we should give them bonuses for holding the peripheral territories.
Make these high prestige high value objective bonuses, with the caveat that the money has to be sunk into the Liberty ships. Ships like a new suped up cruiser.
:-DIt seems easy enough if its just being approached like a rule. USA has to do “such and such” related to the map split. You could just tweak the average income directly through the bonus and say its gotta be used for a navy, or the bonus won’t apply. Then players will have every reason to build ships in both theater.
-
As far as combat units go, I would set out these chief goals for fixing busted units in the current (ideally the solutions for the “problem units” should interrelated.)
Deal with the vulnerability of navies to mass bomber spams
Make the Cruiser a worthwhile purchase.
**Fix AAAguns once and for all.Last things first, AAguns suck. This is pretty universally acknowledged. It blows that the unit sculpt is pretty cool, but it just has no good role to play in the game for most players. For me the single most annoying thing about AAguns is how they are restricted the non-combat phase. This makes them an all around headache in addition to being overpriced and underpowered. So lets fix them.**
As for Cruisers, granting them some sort of AA shot on the water, would fulfill the dual purpose of giving them a unique role to play in the naval game, while also helping to mitigate the overwhelming power of Bombers vs Navies. Does anyone object? Or see this as a non-issue? I would love to find a way to make the AAAgun into a normal combat unit, that moves during the normal combat phase, and can load and unload from transports in the same way all the other transportable units can.
If no one objects to a tweak then I would suggest that we find a way to adapt the AAAgun and the Cruiser (oerhaps in a way that doesn’t violate the current battle board core info) perhaps by granting them some special or expanded abilities?Cruiser anti air capalities have been discussed before.
Flak that can move during combat has also been discussed.
I think it’d be nice if we took a look at some of those discussions and settled on something we can all get behind.Not saying we need to iron out all the details right now, but just to looking for some agreement in general principle. :-D
About AA guns, here is the link to a thread which explains my most recent idea and showed many quotes from other people in various thread. Food for thought. :)
Two simpler and balanced ways to handle AAA unit (Antiaircraft artillery)?
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=36277.msg1433338#msg1433338
Suggested Topics
